I describe the five ways I am involved in research. I’ve organized them from “easiest” to “less easy,” “harder,” “harder still,” and “hardest”; keep in mind those are relative terms. They are meant to reflect the extent to which I’m the driving force, related time/efforts expenditures, and the odds of being successful. I am intentionally varying the amount of risk in my “research portfolio.” At a minimum, that will allow me to continue my trajectory. At best, it will substantially increase my success and that of everyone around me.
Easiest (and in my Statement, unlike everything else below): As a co-collaborator and mentor, I help with research and publishing by offering: (a) methodological expertise in qualitative and mixed-methods research; (b) theoretical expertise in rational choice and opportunity; (c) substantive expertise in offending, but that should be considered broadly because I often focus on how offenders prevent, experience, and respond to victimization and policing (and thus I know about those topics too); also, (d) I’m a good writer and know how to create a narrative.
Note: In those ways, I’d like to help people at Monash. I’m currently doing the above for the Evidence-Based Cybersecurity (EBCS) Group at GSU. I will continue doing so, whether here or at Monash. The following initiative will also continue regardless of my location…
Less Easy: I’m currently setting up the tech and social infrastructure for the future research that I’ll lead for the EBCS. The group has a tone of data that’s quantitative and, more so, qualitative. But only the quantitative data gets used. I’m making it useful at scale. I’m putting all the data, past and future, on a private server and that’s accessible through a private network. It won’t be open data per se because of privacy concerns. Not ideal, but reality. However, many people will be able to use it for research and teaching, so long as they have certain credentials, we can verify their identity, and they sign a NDA. The tricky part is figuring out how to display the data, allow for its analysis on the server, and provide the necessary supplements for it to be properly used. Those are the things I’m currently figuring out. Also, rather than wait for people to “come to us,” I’m recruiting a team of excellent qualitative researchers to analyze and publish on the data. People who do so will be obliged to provide appropriate “author” credit to me and others who contribute to the data’s collection and distribution. This will be done by using the CRediT taxonomy, already widely used in the hard sciences. The CRediT scheme is more ethical and rational than the current authorship model. By combining it with the data sharing idea, I’ll be the contributor on an additional 10 to 20 articles per year, in a few years’ time.
Note: The above could be replicated by other groups that collect more data than they can exhaust on their own. I want to help them do so. This could be done for free for university colleagues, but otherwise funded through various means or compensated through contributor credit.
Harder: During the presentation, I mentioned the importance of, and plan to, study the illicit provision and use of scholarly products. Examples are articles on Sci-Hub. What I didn’t mention, and probably not obvious, are 1) it’s a niche of cybercrime/security, and 2) it relates to government and industry espionage. The theft and trade of scholarly products—as I define them broadly—has and always will be a massive concern for governments and corporations. Keep in mind that the results of this proposed research should have implications for non-scholarly products, like movies, shows and music. Piracy, generally, is the topic.
Harder Still: The “Less Easy” and “Harder” activities, above, will inform the development of natural language processing models that may be commercialized (see “Hardest,” below). For those models to be effective in identifying threats on the darkweb etc., they need to be properly informed; you need to tell them what to look for. That’s not easy. So part of the motive for the “Less Easy” and “Harder” activities is to acquire the information and knowledge needed to inform the models. Especially for the “Less Easy” activity, and this is where it gets hard, my job is tie the strings between all the piecemeal findings by people who analyze the data. Once we’re successful in making the models, we can sell them or the resultant “intelligence” to government and industry groups; which ties into below…
Hardest: I want to do research that leads to successful commercial products and services. Even open scholarship can be commercialized by adopting, for example: the model of open source software companies, which is to provide related services; or, the model of social media is to sell the data or advertising. To be clear, though, I’m not restricting myself to the development of open products; that wouldn’t be rational, pragmatic, or necessarily serve the greatest good. As I tried to explain on our initial call, I’m attracted to the “commercial prospects” because it’s arguably the biggest test of one’s abilities. If you try but fail to create a product that makes a lot of money, then either you haven’t solved an important problem or you’re deficient in other ways. I know that I’m deficient in organizational support. This is partly why I’m making connections and collaborations with Georgia Tech (GT). And partly why I’m trying to convince you to hire me. I’m also interested in this vein of research, if it can be called that, because it serves the public good. At a minimum, it lessens the financial burden on taxpayers to support us, and reduces our need for their support. Better yet is if the product itself produces a social good. In closing, I also want to make clear that I’m not restricting myself to “cyber” research and products/services. I’m interested in all things digital, more broadly. For example, I don’t think many people would consider the police’s collection, analysis and dissemination of data as a “cyber” activity. During my presentation, I mentioned it’s important to find win-wins. So with GT, what I want to develop is software that makes it easier for police to collect, analyze and disseminate data (which is a win for them), which would promote the public’s right to know (another win), and researchers ability to do better research (yet another win). The monetization idea is to make the software open source, but sell services that make use of it; the police could buy this, but so too could companies, for example.
This webpage details my compatibility with the selection criteria. After outlining my training and positions, I describe my research, instruction, and service. I conclude by presenting my vision for the future: vastly enhance open scholarship and thereby maximize the utility of research, teaching, and service.
In 2010, I received a PhD in criminology and criminal justice from the University of Missouri – St. Louis. Before that, in 2005, I received bachelor’s degrees with honors in sociology and psychology from the University of Georgia. From 2008 to 2010, while completing my dissertation on American drug dealers, I lived in Amsterdam to lead a separate project on street dealers, coffeeshops, and bars in and around the city’s Red Light District. For some of that time, I was a researcher at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, and returned as a visiting researcher in the summer of 2011. From 2010 to 2012, I was an assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Cincinnati.
In 2012, I moved to my current home, Georgia State University (GSU). In 2015, I was promoted from assistant professor to associate professor with tenure. Currently, my dossier for promotion to full professor is under review. At GSU, I am director of AYS Open and associate director of the Evidence-Based Cybersecurity Research Group. This year, I founded and serve as director of Criminology Open Ltd, a non-profit corporation that increases free access to criminological publications, data, and more. I am the editor of two journals, International Criminal Justice Review (ICJR) since 2015, and The Journal of Qualitative of Criminal Justice & Criminology (JQCJC) since September of this year.
My research tends to involve collecting, managing, and analyzing qualitative data. My reputation in this area is evident by my recent appointment as editor of JQCJC. I love doing qualitative research, but I recognize its limits. Therefore, I often combine qualitative and quantitative techniques to offset and amplify their respective problems and benefits. On a personal note, something I like about doing mixed-methods research is it provides an opportunity to collaborate with my quantitative colleagues. Beyond my own research, I am a big proponent of bridging the “qualitative/quantitative divide” (e.g., see my articles in Advances in Criminological Theory and Theoretical Criminology, and my Letter From the Editor in JQCJC).
In addition to doing methods, I study them. I examine how, why, and to what effect research unfolds, including its consequences for shaping criminological ideas and controlling crime. To see my publications in this area, please go here. I will describe a couple of those papers because they relate to what follows. In an article in The Annual Review of Criminology, my coauthors and I review the history of active offender research; how it is done; its scientific merits; and ethics. We conclude by discussing how it could be improved with mixed-methods, experiments, and emerging computational and technological approaches, such as virtual reality simulation studies and agent-based modeling. In a separate paper with my graduate student (now faculty member), we outline five ways that offender-based research can be used to inform situational crime prevention.
Most of my publications are based on research with active offenders; you can see these papers here and here. Specifically, I research how, why, and to what effect they engage in illicit markets, predatory acts, and retaliatory acts. By studying offender decision-making, I inform how to reduce crime and improve control. To date, I have collected data from active drug dealers, robbers, carjackers, and shoplifters. In the prior year, I have moved from studying “traditional,” or “analog,” forms of crime and control to digital ones. This change reflects, in part, my duties as associate director of GSU’s Evidence-Based Cybersecurity Research Group (EBCS). Our approach is mixed-methods and emphasizes experimental designs to test rational choice theories. We study phenomena such as darkweb markets, hacking, and much more. At the moment, I am personally involved in studies on risky public Wi-Fi use, romance fraud, money laundering, and, though not criminal, cheating in online courses.
Moving forward, my intention is to focus and expand my research on digital criminology, after I finish a pressing obligation—completing an edited volume on Jeremy Bentham’s writings on police. It is under contract with UCL Press, and should be published in late 2021 or early 2022. My coeditor is Philip Schofield, Director of UCL’s Bentham Project and General Editor of The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham. Bentham’s ideas on punishment are famous. But his writings on police are largely unknown. Jeremy Bentham on Police investigates this area and what it means for criminology. In addition to chapters by Philip and me, the volume has a tremendous list of contributors, such as Ron Clarke, Guy Geltner, Joel Harrington, Gloria Laycock, Gary Marx, Dan Nagin, Graeme Newman, and Kim Rossmo.
That edited volume may seem like a dramatic departure from my research agenda; in some ways, it is. What it reflects, though, is that Bentham’s ideas on rational choice and opportunity are the theoretical foundation of my research. I examine how criminals perceive phenomena as good (i.e., a benefit) or bad (i.e., a cost), weigh their utility in light of opportunities, and act accordingly. In turn, we can use that knowledge to reduce crime and improve control; i.e., figure out the most rational way to prevent offenses.
My complete record of publications includes two books; forty-four articles in peer-reviewed journals; and, twelve chapters in edited volumes. My books are Code of the Suburb: Inside the World of Young Middle-Class Drug Dealers (University of Chicago Press, 2015), coauthored with Richard Wright; and, Grey Area: Regulating Amsterdam’s Coffeeshops (UCL Press, 2019). The first is purely qualitative, whereas, reflecting my evolution as a scholar, the second is mixed-methods; not only “mixed” in that it includes qualitative and quantitative data, but also by combining data from interviews, surveys, ethnographic observation, and systematic social observation.1
My articles appear in the field’s best journals, per Google Scholar’s “Top publications” rank in “Criminology, Criminal Law & Policing.” These include The American Journal of Criminal Justice, Crime & Delinquency, Criminology, Criminology & Public Policy, Justice Quarterly, Policing & Society, The British Journal of Criminology, The Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, and Theoretical Criminology. I also have published in other high impact outlets that are not categorized as “Criminology, Criminal Law & Policing.” These journals are Aggression & Violent Behavior, Deviant Behavior, and The International Journal of Drug Policy.
My work has a marked impact on the work of others. This is evident in citation metrics, for instance. See table 1 for information on my total number of citations, h-index, i10-index, and m-quotient. According to productivity studies,2 I am several times more impactful than the average full professor in the United States.
Table 1. Citation metrics
2008 is the year of my first publication.
I have a demonstrated ability to generate income from traditional and non-traditional sources. To date, I have generated more than US$640,000 in external funding (~AU$889,000). Most of that total comes from government entities in support of research; three projects were funded by the National Science Foundation, US Department of Justice Assistance, and Dutch Policy Academy. To support my (open) educational activities, another government organization, Affordable Learning Georgia (ALG), provided US$66,000 across four textbook transformation grants. Industry and philanthropic organizations have contributed, too. My most recent grant (~US$180,000) is from the Public Interest Technology University Network (PIT-UN), which is principally supported by New America and the Ford Foundation. Currently underway, this project involves establishing collaborations between social scientists, mostly criminologists, at Georgia State University with computer scientists at The Georgia Institute of Technology (GT); I write more about this project in the subsection on mentoring.
Though not on my CV, I am actively involved in raising philanthropic dollars to support my efforts to reduce the cost of course learning materials. I worked with my college’s and library’s directors of development (i.e., fundraisers) to establish a foundation account dedicated to that purpose. Asking for gifts requires giving, so I donate about 1% of my take-home salary to that account. We recently received our first large gift—US$10,000 from the Arthur Blank Foundation. The day of submitting this application, I learned of a new gift, from an individual, in the amount of $5,000. Developing this funding stream is new to me, but it is an exciting way to build relationships with the community and financially support initiatives.
Early in my career, the projects I wanted to do required external funding. Some were funded. I found myself with so much data that it became irrational to apply for more grants. I have exhausted that data, so now again I am seeking external funding. In 2019 and 2020, my colleagues and I submitted three grant applications; they total more than US$1,000,000. One was funded, namely that from PIT-UN (see above). At the moment, I have another application under review from PIT-UN, in the amount of about US$180,000. I also have a small application under consideration by Sage Publishing, to support an experiment on the effect of “green open access”; we requested about $25,000. As I write this letter, I am corresponding with people about putting in an application upwards of US$2,000,000, which will be used to create, gain adoption of, and assess open (i.e., free) course materials.
In the future, it is hard to imagine another dormant period. This is because, to use an analogy, I have changed—am changing—from a golf or tennis player to the manager of an international football/soccer team. It takes a lot more money to support a big team. Allow me to explain sans analogy. Previously, I did every single task (with the exception of transcription, data entry, and quantitative analysis), from designing the study to data collection, coding (i.e., qualitative analysis), and writing. This independence is seen in my CV: I am the sole author of many publications, and the lead author of many others. When you work that way, you can only have one or two big projects at a time, and have little time to apply for more; ergo, you only need one or two grants at a time. Now, I am focusing on the higher-level tasks. By not doing every little thing, I can do a lot more; the irony. Whereas my work previously involved only a few Principal Investigators and graduate assistants, the projects I am currently involved in—and putting into motion—involve many researchers from different fields (e.g., criminology and computer science) and dozens of assistants.
In addition to generating income, I have a demonstrated ability to preserve financial resources, not only “mine” but also those of others. I will be brief here, as “saving money” and “rational spending” are not specified as selection criteria. That said, we owe it to taxpayers, students, and other financial backers to make the most of their money. For example, my initiatives to reduce the cost of course learning materials are saving students in excess of US$100,000 each semester. For my college and field, my work on open access expands the reach of scholarly knowledge by reducing its cost. Like Monash, I do not support the expensive type of open access: that which is “gold,” i.e. involves paying processing charges. Instead, I promote ways to legally provide high quality “green” and “diamond” access. This not only expands the impact of our work, but also reduces the costs borne by libraries and other university units. I write more about all this in my vision statement.
I have successfully supervised postgraduate research students. For completed dissertations, I have been the chair of one committee, and a member of two others. Currently, I am a member of an in-progress dissertation committee. There are more students, past and present, who I serve in an informal capacity. Usually, my guidance is with respect to qualitative methods, their integration with quantitative methods, offender decision-making, rational choice, and best practices in getting published. Unfortunately, in my department, there are relatively few students “to go around.” One reason I am applying for the Monash position is to have more opportunity to supervise research students.
I do enjoy occasional pointless griping (don’t we all?), but I am committedly solutions-oriented. In addition to my research and theoretical interests in prevention, and my efforts to expand open scholarship, my emphasis on solutions is evident in how I am creating mentoring opportunities outside my university. Recall that my currently funded PIT-UN project involves pairing social scientists at GSU with computer scientists at GT. I am on three of these projects. For each, I am mentoring a PhD student or “Postdoc” at GT, helping them to do truly cutting-edge research in criminology. This project will formally end in December, but I will continue working with those early career researchers (ERC) at GT and I hope to mentor more of them in the years to come.
My other mentoring initiative is less mature but will have a bigger impact. The idea came from corresponding with JQCJC’s editorial board, which, I should mention, has many ERCs. Mentoring should not only be in research and teaching, but also service. One of the young editorial board members raised the concern that many graduate students want to do qualitative research but lack mentors who are experts in the area. This is a problem, especially in the United States it seems, because criminology is relatively dominated by quantitative researchers. At the moment, then, I am looking into digital solutions that would provide an organized way for seasoned and junior qualitative researchers to work together from afar.
I have a passion for, and proven excellence in, undergraduate- and graduate-level teaching, both “seated” (i.e., in-person) and online. At the undergraduate-level, I have taught Corrections; Crime across Communities, Individuals, and Situations; Criminological Theory; Drugs and Crime; Drugs, Crime, and Criminal Justice; Drugs, Crime, and Policing; Introduction to Criminal Justice; Research Methods in Criminal Justice; and, Social Science and the American Crime Problem. At the graduate-level, Advanced Research Methods, Qualitative Research Methods, plus Drugs and Crime.
A key part of my teaching strategy is to disseminate knowledge and promote critical thinking skills by bringing the “real world” and multiple perspectives into the (virtual) classroom. The approach is seen in students’ statements like “I appreciated the focus on constructive disagreement”; “This course promoted very thought-provoking discussion among each student”; “Very Interesting course! Learned a lot of new perspectives!” Another key part of my teaching strategy is to minimize the cost of course materials, preferably to zero. This approach is evidence-based: research shows that student success is increased by using no-cost learning materials. In my department, college, and university, I am regarded as the leader in no-cost learning. All of my courses use no-cost materials; I received four grants to make them that way; and, recently, I was asked by our provost to serve as the university’s “faculty champion” for Affordable Learning Georgia.
My teaching evaluations demonstrate that I communicate well and work effectively with students. Indeed, another part of my teaching strategy is to provide very clear objectives, instructions, and organization. On the scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), my average score across sections is 4.6 for “The instructor communicates effectively.”3 I score similarly on other relevant statements such as “The instructor explained the course grading system clearly”; “The instructor was willing and able to answer students’ questions”; “Test questions clearly related to course content”; “The instructor was receptive to students’ and others’ opinions”; “The instructor provided helpful feedback on assignments”; and, “The instructor was accessible to students outside of class.” Students’ written testaments speak to my effective communication and work with them. To quote the students, “straight forward detailed instructions- everything u need to succeed in the course interesting topics”; “He was always contacting us to make sure we were on track, and was very helpful in how he made sure we were prepared for the upcoming quizzes, etc.”; “Well organized Responds to emails quickly”; “Gave great feedback”; “Provided the material in an effective manner that made it interesting to learn. He was very clear in what was expected of the course, and was very helpful when asked questions.”
I effectively provide students with the current information, concepts, and theories required for mastery of the field. Again, this is evident in my teaching evaluations. My average score across sections is 4.6 for “The instructor demonstrated extensive knowledge of the subject.” I have similar scores for other relevant statements, such as “The instructor gave assignments relevant to the goals of this course”; “The instructor was well prepared”; “The instructor stimulated me to intellectual effort beyond that required of most courses”; “The instructor’s teaching methods aid students in understanding the material”; “The overall structuring and sequencing of topics in this course facilitated learning”; and, “I am pleased with how much I learned in this course.” Consider what students wrote about my ability to instruct them in criminology: “Very through and strong in learning and understanding of the material”; “The calculated efforts put in by the professor were laser guided to student success. The assignments and the methods were great”; “Made me really do some deep thinking and the material I learned allowed me access to connect it to crimes around my community”; “Challenges our view of society”; “This professor was great at giving us assignments that challenged our critical thinking skills, and at the same time, making us more aware of the strengths and weakness of the criminal justice system all over the world.”
I am willing and able to make a substantial contribution to the administrative and planning activities at Monash. I have demonstrated professional leadership qualities and capacity for executive administrative responsibilities. For example, within my department (Criminal Justice and Criminology), my most important service contribution is my initiative to standardize our courses, make them no-cost, and put them online (in addition to in-person/seated). I will be brief here, but this involves helping the department chair and an associate dean decide—in any given future semester—which courses to standardize and put online, who to involve, and how to undertake this activity. Also for the department, I was the creator and coordinator of our speaker series, “‘Non-Criminologists’ Talk Crime & Control” (2018-2020). I served as a member of the Promotion and Tenure Committee (2015-2016), Graduate Program Committee (2015-2017), and Bylaws Committee (2018-present).
For my college (Andrew Young School of Policy Studies), my most important service position is as director of AYS Open (2019–present), an initiative that I created. It is increasing AYS’s dissemination and use of free scholarship (e.g., open access articles), open educational resources (e.g., free textbooks), data, analytic code, software, and more. I want to do something similar at Monash; more about this is in in my vision statement. As part of my director position, currently I am chairing two ad hoc committees that are developing, respectively, college-wide open access and open data policies. Also for the college, I served as a member of the Academic Discipline Committee (2015-2017), Faculty Appeals Committee (2018-2020), Online Instruction Committee (2018-2020), Digital World Initiative Team 3 (2019), and Academic Programs Committee (2018-2020).
For the university, my most important service position is as associate director of my university’s Evidence-Based Cybersecurity Research Group (EBCS), which is a joint venture of the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology (in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies), the Department of Computer Science (in the College of Arts & Sciences), and the J. Mack Robinson College of Business. In addition to my research responsibilities for the EBCS, I oversee educational initiatives, such as a new minor and certificate in evidence-based cybersecurity, and aspects of marketing (e.g., changing our website to be maximally friendly and useful to visitors in industry). Outside the EBCS, I have been a member of the University Senate (2018-2020). Part of that role includes service on subcommittees. I was a member of the Student Discipline Subcommittee (2018-2019), Budget Subcommittee (2019-2020), and Library Subcommittee (2018-2020). For the Library Subcommittee, I served as chair (2019-2020). Outside the Senate, I was a judge for the inaugural Student Book Collecting Contest. For the Honors College, I was an interviewer for the Presidential Scholarship Selection Committee (2017) and reviewer for the Undergraduate Research Conferences (2014-2017, 2020).
As part of my work for the EBCS, I am developing relationships with industry and government agencies. Similar to my relationship-building with philanthropic organizations (see the section on Past & Current Funding), doing the same with industry and government bodies is a crucial part of my evolution as a scholar and community servant. As seen on the EBCS’s Underwriters page, our work is financially supported by international and industry and government bodies. Cultivating these relationships is a big part of what we do. The organizations provide us funding and unique research opportunities—namely, real-world problems and data—in exchange for helping them. In turn, we use the findings and solutions to inform best practices in evidence-based cybersecurity. Better yet, these relationships provide reciprocal educational and training opportunities for our students and their employees. Our students do internships with them, and their employees receive training from us.
For my field, I founded and serve as director of Criminology Open Ltd. It has been in the works for a couple years, and recently incorporated as a nonprofit corporation in Georgia. In that capacity, I do things like write short pieces on how to increase open access (see criminologyopen.com); help “diamond journals,” including JQCJC, improve their production quality and indexing; establish a field-specific repository, CrimRxiv; and move the Oral History of Criminology Project to a new and improved website. Also, I am editor of two peer-review journals. Since 2015, I preside over The International Criminal Justice Review. During my time as Editor, and as evident on the journal’s Scimago page, it has made sizeable gains in its total cites and citations per document. I recently took over as editor of The Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology (JQCJC). Already, though, I made dramatic improvements to its production quality and internationalized the editorial board, with more improvements in the works.
I put a lot of time into writing out, and then deleting, parts of my vision for the future needs and development of criminology within Australia and internationally. Drafts of this letter included my visions for a digital criminology; one that focuses on public interest technology (PIT); and, one that emphasizes technologcally-driven innovation. My concrete proposals included a “quick win” by making an EBCS outpost at Monash; and, in the longer term, building a digital criminology research group, with the aim of becoming a center or institute; making PIT the moral foundation of that group; all with the goal of inventing and implementing ethical technology to reduce crime and improve control, which would provide the basis for cutting-edge criminological research and start-up companies.
I decided not to focus on those ideas. Why? Because I have a compatible vision that is needed more. It is the most important vision because it will help to maximize the impact of all visions—mine, that of other criminologists, and everyone else. This vision was not possible until recent history, but technological advances have changed that. Now, it is up to us to make it happen.
What criminology needs is not unique to this field. All of the (social) sciences and humanities need it. It is needed in research, instruction, and service. It is needed in Australia and internationally; at Monash and beyond. It is needed by individuals and organizations, rich and poor. It a cornerstone of democracy and research, but not sufficiently part of how we disseminate the latter. Scholars, as individuals or collectively as university faculty, must act more rationally. Not only out of self-interest, but to maximize the utility of scholarship for everyone—the greatest good for the greatest number.
My vision is to vastly enhance the quantity and quality of our provision and use of open, or free, information.4 We must remove the paywalls in front of publications, educational resources, and other scholarly products, including datasets, analytic code, and software code. A catch-all term for this approach to information sharing is “open science,” though I think that is far too narrow because the humanities should be involved too. So, instead, I refer to “open scholarship.”
There are several reasons why we need to make that vision real. Information is available more than ever, yet the price of it—especially as publications—is rising at rates far exceeding inflation; troves of data remain cloistered and siloed; technological innovations remain proprietary. We must ensure that everyone can afford our scholarly products. This will put information in the hands of policymakers, practitioners, and general public; speed scholarship, innovation, and replication; improve student success; and, better serve social justice and our constituents (e.g., taxpayers, students). This is equivalent to maximizing the utility of scholarship, criminological and otherwise.
I have a lot of experience making that vision into a reality.5 These activities were described throughout this letter. They benefit my field, department, college, and, most importantly, the communities we serve. Few people, if anyone, is doing more to open criminology than me. Yet I am only at the beginning. I want to continue these efforts at Monash. Everyone in criminology, and many people outside the field, will admire Monash for being an innovator and leader in all things open.